Applying the analytic hierarchy process to evaluation of the national nuclear R&D projects : The case of Korea

Researchers, institutes, and government involved in research and development (R&D) are faced with the problem of performing R&D project evaluations. As a real-world case of evaluation, we elicited and reproduced the evaluation process of the national nuclear R&D projects, using a specific case study of Korea for the year 2001. In the methodology, the analytic hierarchy process is employed to evaluate and rank the selected nuclear R&D projects which have a wide range of evaluation objectives and characteristics. This article presents a derivation of a wide range of objectives, evaluation viewpoints from research professionals and evaluators, and evaluation criteria. To structure and quantify the criteria and research performance of some selected projects, we elicited strategic objectives, then refined and structured them into a hierarchy. The method and implications can be easily understood and applied by practitioners since they follow the standard practice of evaluation and relative comparisons of performance using evaluation procedures.

[1]  Luke Georghiou,et al.  Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods , 2000 .

[2]  Abraham Mehrez,et al.  Justification of global positioning systems purchase using the analytic hierarchical process—The case of the Israeli Defense Force , 1998 .

[3]  S. Rengarajan,et al.  Project selection by scoring for a large R&D organisation in a developing country , 1997 .

[4]  Kamal M. Al‐Subhi Al‐Harbi,et al.  Application of the AHP in project management , 2001 .

[5]  José H. Dulá,et al.  Performance evaluation based on multiple attributes with nonparametric frontiers , 1999 .

[6]  Kiyong Om,et al.  Evaluation of national R&D projects in Korea , 1996 .

[7]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making for leaders , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[8]  Lesley Davis,et al.  Evaluating and Selecting Simulation Software Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1994 .

[9]  Martin Hoesli,et al.  Environmental preferences of homeowners : Further evidence using the AHP method , 2000 .

[10]  Kneale T. Marshall,et al.  Decision making and forecasting : with emphasis on model building and policy analysis , 1995 .

[11]  B. W. Ang,et al.  A comparative analysis of R&D project evaluation methods , 2001 .

[12]  Bilal Akash,et al.  Multi-criteria selection of electric power plants using analytical hierarchy process , 1999 .

[13]  Andrea Rangone,et al.  An analytical hierarchy process framework for comparing the overall performance of manufacturing departments , 1996 .

[14]  Jiaqin Yang,et al.  AN AHP DECISION MODEL FOR FACILITY LOCATION SELECTION , 1997 .

[15]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation , 1990 .

[16]  Kwai-Sang Chin,et al.  An AHP based study of critical factors for TQM implementation in Shanghai manufacturing industries , 2002 .

[17]  D. R. Hoffman,et al.  Personnel evaluation with AHP , 1998 .

[18]  Wolfgang Ossadnik,et al.  AHP-based evaluation of AHP-Software , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[19]  Godwin G. Udo Using analytic hierarchy process to analyze the information technology outsourcing decision , 2000, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..